Download
1 / 40
400 likes | 899 Views
Implementation of the LASPO Act 2012 Key Stakeholder Information September 2012 Sue Walker (Senior Development Adviser) Lisa Harvey-Messina (Remands Project Manager, YJB). Agenda. Overview of key elements of LASPO Act 2012
E N D
Implementation of the LASPO Act 2012 Key Stakeholder InformationSeptember 2012Sue Walker (Senior Development Adviser)Lisa Harvey-Messina (Remands Project Manager, YJB)
Agenda • Overview of key elements of LASPO Act 2012 • Youth secure remands: Key changes and implications for local authorities • Establishing alternatives to custody: Achieving appropriate reductions in remands to youth detention accommodation • Consultation and engagement: How we aim to engage key stakeholders in the move towards LASPO implementation
Under the current out-of-court framework, the disposal a young person receives depends only on the severity of the offence and what previous disposals have been used. One-way process regardless of severity, victim’s interests or risk of non-compliance Can jump more than one place but cannot de-escalate for less serious Charge- Unlike for adults once charged no other disposal can be used even if convicted for first offence. Youth Conditional Caution- Once only. Available for 16/17s in five areas. Final Warning- Can be used twice if two years since previous warning. Reprimand- Once only Penalty Notice for Disorder – Used at any time Community Resolution (Youth Restorative Disposal) - Used at any time
New system: • Reduces and simplifies the out of court landscape to provide three types of disposal. • Community Resolutions • Youth Cautions • Youth Conditional Cautions • The disposals differ in the level of obligation to assess and intervene. • The decision on which disposal to use would be based on the severity of the offence, previous offending history, likelihood of compliance and will take into account the views of the victim • Will provide an increased balance in decision making around public interest, public protection and welfare need. • Disposals may be used in any order even for those who have a previous conviction at court, in line with the adult framework. The minimum appropriate disposal should be used and should include a restorative justice element
New landscape post LASPO implementation April 2013: • Community Resolution. • Non-statutory. • Local discretion on implementation with ACPO guidance and HO counting rules. • Victim’s considerations to be taken into account • Young person’s agreement required to participate and accept CR/RJ • Best practice is to notify YOTs of all CR/RJ • Youth Caution • Statutory disposal. • YOT notified. Will use their expertise to determine need for assessment and intervention. • Assessment required for second and subsequent formal disposal • Non-compliance with interventions is citable in court and may inform future disposal decisions. • Guidance recommends joint decision making process involving YOT and police to determine appropriate disposal. • Youth Conditional Caution • Statutory disposal. • Police are empowered to offer a YCC with proportionate rehabilitative, punitive and reparative conditions as an alternative to prosecution. • YOT will screen and advise police on appropriate conditions to prevent re-offending. • YOT responsible for monitoring compliance. • Non-compliance may result in prosecution for original offence. • Severity and impact of offencePrevious offences and compliance with previous disposalsWillingness to engage and accept full responsibility The appropriate level of response must be proportionate, appropriate and defensible, taking into account the views of the victim.
Youth Sentences • Referral Orders • The Act increases sentencer discretion by allowing courts to conditionally discharge a young person who pleads guilty to their first offence instead of giving a referral order; • The Act also removes the current restriction on repeated use of the referral order where a young person has pleaded guilty to an offence; • Further Guidance has been produced and is currently being checked by MOJ Legal Advisers.
DTOs • Breach of DTOs can be brought to court even after the DTO has finished; • Courts will have a new power to impose a period of supervision instead of custody for the breach (previous powers remain); • The maximum period of supervision or detention will be 3 months or the period beginning with the date of the failure to comply with the requirement and the last day of the original term of the DTO, whichever is the shorter; • Where the court imposes a period of detention or supervision for breach, it takes immediate effect and can run concurrently with a period of supervision under the DTO; • Also if a young person continues to breach the DTO, the court can impose a further period of supervision (or detention or a fine) and this continues to be the case until the young person completes the order.
Youth Rehabilitation Order • LASPO Act increases the maximum number of hours a curfew can be imposed from 12 to 16 hours per day and the length from 6 to 12 months (in line withthe adult community order). This remains an area for YJB focus and further guidance on implementation is being produced as to when using an extended curfew would be appropriate; • The Act removes the requirement for evidence from a medical practitioner approved for the purposes of section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (in linewith the adult community order). • The end date for a YRO will now become the date of the last completion date for requirements within it, where this falls before the end date specified by the court (in line with the adult community order). This will resolve the position where the requirements of a YRO can be completed but the YRO itself has not reached its end date. This can only be resolved currently by returning to court and seeking revocation of the YRO.
YRO Cont …. • The Act also allows a court to extend the end date of a YRO by up to 6 months where the requirements in it have not been completed within the overall 3 year maximum period of a YRO (in line with the adultcommunity order). Such an extension can be imposed on only one occasion. • The maximum fine for breach of a YRO is increased to £2,500 (in linewith the adult community order) instead of the current limits set at £250 for under 14 year olds or £1,000 for those 14 years or over. However, there is no change to the requirement for courts to take into consideration the means of the offender when setting an appropriate fine.
Background • Numbers of children and young people (cyp) on secure and custodial remand are not reducing at the same rate as those serving custodial sentences. • In 2010/11, 26% of all cyp in custody were on remand however 61% of cyp on secure remand were acquitted or did not go on to receive a custodial sentence from trial. This suggests that many secure remands may be unnecessary. • Remands to custody are expensive. • Currently the MoJ/YJB pays for: • Two thirds of COSR (c £15m for MoJ versus c £8m from local authorities across England and Wales) • All the costs of remands to custody.
Progression of primary legislation • Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act • Simplified remand framework; • 17 year olds now subject to the same remand framework as 12 to 16 year olds, therefore ending their treatment as adults for remand purposes; • LAC status extended to all 12-17 year olds given a secure remand (and 17 year olds now eligible for a remand to local authority accommodation) • New testfor remanding young people to youth detention accommodation (YDA); • Greater financial responsibility for local authorities*; • Aim to reduce unnecessary remands; • Awaiting implementation- anticipated Nov/Dec 2012.
Anticipated reductions in remands • Analysis of impact of sentencing changes • Two sets of conditions – one or other must be satisfied before remand to YDA - represented within a new ‘TEST’: 1. Seriousness of offence; 2. Real prospect of receiving a custodial sentence and history of absconding and committing further offences on bail or remand; • Having used most recent full year data on remands (10/11) to estimate impact of new conditions, modelling would suggest that an estimated 15% reduction is achievable via the implementation of the Test; • Guidance for Magistrates in draft format.
Looked After Children (LAC) • From the implementation of LASPOall cyp remanded in youth detention accommodation (YDA) will receive LAC status; • Current work underway to look at any deregulations; • LAC guide being developed and piloted via reference groups with YOTs and Children's Services; • A budget will be transferred for this new responsibility; • If stakeholders would like to provide input for the guide, contact victoria.bedford@yjb.gsi.gov.uk
Greater financial responsibility & incentives for local authorities (LAs) • From April 2013, greater financial responsibility for secure and custodial remands will be devolved to LAs; • Current COSR funding arrangements will continue from early December 2012 to April 2013, interim regulations will be put in place; • There will be a clear incentive for LAs to reduce their secure remands and reinvest achieved savings; • Detail and options relating to the below are being confirmed and feature within the Consultation:- • pricing and charging; • funding formula; • transfer arrangements; • secure transport arrangements.
Allocation of the remands ‘pot’ • The options being considered: • Allocation based on a historic use of secure remand formula (averages over a number of years); • Allocation based upon the YJ Grant formula (population and deprivation indices); • A phased introduction . Disadvantages/advantages with both: • Historic-enables continuity and poses minimal threat to YOT budgets vs. rewarding poor performance, punishing reductions, reliant upon data accuracy; • YJ Grant- based upon need, parity of approach with wider allocation vs. some YOTs’ use of secure remand beds is far higher than their share of offenders = struggle to meet costs.
Placement of children and young people • Legal responsibility to place cyp is formalised within LASPO; • YOTs will still inform placement decisions via the sharing of assessments of risk and need (designated LA to be consulted by YJB re placement); • Placement decisions are underpinned by the Placement Information Form (PIF); • Clarity of data sharing with the placements team is vital: -To underpin information sharing and risk and safeguarding decisions; - An incomplete overview = inappropriate placements decisions; -Future impact upon correct invoicing.
Achieving reductions in remands • Targeted practice work with YOTs • Various activity has raised awareness of remands issue: • Publication of remands bed nights tracking tool; • Publication of remand toolkit; • Consultation and engagement. • Practice work has evidenced potential for reductions in remands to custody: • National reduction in remands of 9% (2009/10- 2010/11); • Across those targeted for practice development work average reduction of 18%. • Further support work being conducted with YOTs via the Local Partnership Advisor structures.
Case studies Main areas for improvement: • Relationships with the Courts; • Tracking systems for those cyp either at risk of secure remand or within youth detention accommodation; • Consistent and out of hours court presence; • Robust and accountable alternatives to custody; • Diversion panels; Examples (21%-54% reductions)
Consortia arrangements • Pooling of funding and/or resources with other authorities to achieve a common purpose that is likely to be beyond the capabilities of a single Service; • An option for consideration in responding to secure remand changes? • Consortia examples:- • Resettlement consortium; • ISS; • Children’s Services, Wales.
Consultation (1) • Informal consultation, lead by MoJ • aiming for September release (although this could be subject to change); • an 8-week consultation period. • Options being considered for consultation: • mechanisms for transferring funding to local authorities; • options for managing ‘spike events’; • options for pooling budgets/ consortia arrangements; • issues relating to payment of transport arrangements; • application of LAC status for remanded young people.
Consultation (2) • Additional information provided to inform the consultation will include; • intentions around pricing for recovery of costs; and • new arrangements for engaging LAs in commissioning activity; • YJB is organising engagement activity in the consultation period – to maximise discussion/inform responses.
Engagement and implementation • Engagement/implementation events • aiming for October, England and Wales (invitations shortly); • targeting DCS/AD/Finance leads/YOT managers • Serco will be part of the events to prepare with LAs for the mobilisation of the remand population. • Performance/delivery support • Judicial College input; • regular and targeted communications; • remand toolkit workshops and tailored individual support and materials will be available from September;
Deciding levels of support • Arguably the most simple starting place is to review the numbers of secure remand episodes (confirm accuracy*); • The number and the broad trends across these periods provide an initial indication of whether further analysis should be undertaken; • Evaluate readiness for strategic and operational changes; • Consider ability to achieve policy objectives i.e. reduce potentially unnecessary remands; enhance alternatives to custody and realise incentives; • Options for support have been created based upon differing levels of need.
Remands data accuracy….key points • Record all remand episodes formally as intervention programmes with correct start and end dates; • 2. Check the residency of the young person (whether out of area or not); • 3. Record each distinct remand episode once as an intervention programme, without amalgamating episodes; • 4. Update remand end date as and when the young person is released from custody, if different to predicted end date.
Support options • Option 1: • Attendance at a remand preparation workshop • Option 2: • Provision of an individual workshop • Option 3: • Signposting only.
Process to complete the data collection tool • Choose your sample: • All young people going through court over 12-month period (or 60/70 cases) • Re-offending population? • Only those on conditional bail and above? • Only those securely remanded? • Take data from the YOT MIS (YOIS / Careworks). • Must use drop-downs • Graphs are then generated which tell us something about the bail / remand population and possibly how costs may be reduced.
YOT next steps • Having undertaken the analysis…… • Work through the Assessment and Intervention Document (AID) • Identify rationale for secure remand outcomes • Suggested analysis • Suggested activities for improvement • References to tools Ask for assistance as required, learn from the pilots….
Questions • remandsproject@yjb.gsi.gov.uk
